what is the beggining of philosophy?

@Dasein,

Is a woof a thought?

0 Replies

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
"Explanations" may or may not produce resolve, which is what you are speaking of...it depends on to whom they are directed and if they are functional with this hypothetical whom to which they are addressed...accommodation, which is for the case, the experience of knowing, in order to be achieved must first imply an relational, functional, operational, component, an extension and size of what is and can be up to a degree accommodated, or the "objectified" conceptual representation of the relational process..."explanation" as preceding accommodation is just one more dimension in that more vast inter relational set...
The "reason" people have “explanations” and all of the gobbledy-goop in your posting is because they haven't 'done the work' of getting to the bottom of the truth.

All of the "explanations" and the 'gobbledy-goop' (above) comes from 'you', 'Be'-ing. It is your job in life to 'crack the surface' of your "explanations" and 'gobbledy-goop' and uncover what they point-to.

When you get to the bottom of the 'truth' of your 'Be'-ing and you find 'who you are' (which is in the truth), you will experience "resolution". Then, all of the 'explanations' and the 'gobbledy-goop' will become clear to you.

Until then, your "explanations" and the 'gobbledy-goop' will be what you are entangled in and you will pompously attempt to “sell” your theories and conjecture to the rest of us. It is your make-up as a human 'Be'-ing to cover up who you are with all of your theories and conjecture. It is also your make-up to believe your theories and conjecture, because if you didn't the 'cover-up' wouldn't work.

No mystery

And, if to use your on 'gobbledy-goop', how do you think people can do the "work" of uncovering "who" they are be-ing if not through the relational, from which the explanation is just one more fitting dimension ?
The amazing in your discourse is that your be-ing there is about non being at all...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

'Be'-ing is where your concepts of 'being' and 'non-being' happen. 'Being' and 'non-being' are identities which you have constructed. 'You' are not an identity. 'You' is where the 'constructed identities' happen.

It's kind of like sitting down at the dining room table. You see the salt and pepper, you see the silverware, the dishes, the food, and the participants (including yourself) and you can talk about the things on the table and in the room.

However, if you were able to step away from 'you' sitting at the table, the dining room, the house, the country, the planet, and past the universe, you would get an idea of what 'Be'-ing is.

Now that you have an idea of 'Be'-ing, you can step back into 'you' at the dining room table and realize that all of your representations are representations of 'you', 'Be'-ing. Now you have the choice of whether you want to keep 'representing' you 'Be'-ing or if you want to authentically 'Be' who you are instead of being the representations (concepts, theories, conjecture).

3 Replies

@Dasein,

Are you and I one?

0 Replies

@Dasein,

I know from a long time now the meaning and sense that you attribute to "you" as what is be-ing...what I meant is that such exercise still is a representation of what you designate as "be-ing"...you are always in the representational field...even when you think you have evade it...actually that representation is what works for you (Dasein) being there...my being-(here)-there "works" differently...and is just as valid...its be-ing !
The true "uncovering" is that all representations, that are also always legitimate forms of be-ing, in the ONE Truth, as what they are, they are the BEING itself !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

There´s no Being without the be-ing, nor be-ing if not for Being !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

There´s no Being without the be-ing, nor be-ing if not for Being!

Actually, "There´s no Being without the be-ing, nor being if not for 'Be'-ing!" is a much more accurate way of representing what you're pointing at.

1 Reply

@Dasein,

The problem seems to be that you assume that people don´t understand what you mean...but you might be assuming to fast Dasein... Wink

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I know from a long time now the meaning and sense that you attribute to "you" as what is be-ing...what I meant is that such exercise still is a representation of what you designate as "be-ing"...you are always in the representational field...even when you think you have evade it...actually that representation is what works for you (Dasein) being there...my being-(here)-there "works" differently...and is just as valid...its be-ing!
The true "uncovering" is that all representations, that are also always legitimate forms of be-ing, in the ONE Truth, as what they are, they are the BEING itself!

There's nothing wrong with you representing your 'self" with concepts, theories, and conjecture if you are fully aware that that is what you're doing. I contend that if you are fully aware that you are using representations, then you would make sure that something other than representations would show up in your speaking/writing. The 'something other' I refer to does show up or it doesn't. This points to authenticity.

1 Reply

@Dasein,

I see your point...but I know nothing which is not authentic...its be-ing !
In the relational of be-ing the "representations" are just as valid as the "happening"...they all are "happening"...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Something is happening, but I'll bet you that it's not the representations that are happening.

1 Reply

@Dasein,

Oh...are they not happening ? How come ? Are they not being representations ?

1 Reply

@Dasein,

I love your Kung-Fu fighting. It hurts my brain to think that much. I just like to do No-Thing. 'Be'. Oppose nothing. Zazen. I think you like that too and like me, have a good time with posts, as long as it does not mess with your Zen. Ohmmm.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

'They' aren't happening because they are just representations of what is actually happening.

2 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

Really, no kidding?...

0 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

I remember a story about Alan Watts and a zen master. The master was pouring tea into a cup and allowed the tea to overflow. Without going into the whole story (don't remember it all), the master basically said to Alan Watts that he had to "empty his teacup" before he could learn anything about Zen.

What the master was saying is that your representations are your representations and that your representations are what is 'filling your cup'. Your 'representations' and 'life' are not the same. As a matter of fact, the only connection they have to life is 'you'.

This is why you have been reading "concepts are a combination of characteristics" in my postings. Concepts are a collection of 'other' concepts which are a combination of characteristics. So you end up having a 'combination of characteristics' attested by a 'combination of characteristics'. It is a 'house of cards', a quagmire, a labyrinth, and an entanglement. It is not life!

In 1968, The Moody Blues released an album entitled, “On The Threshold of a Dream”. The first song on the album (not really a “song”, per say) was called “In The Beginning”.

First man:
I think....
I think I am.
Therefore, I am!
I think......

Establishment:
Of course you are my bright little star....
I've miles and miles of files.
Pretty files of your forefather's fruit...
And now to suit our great computer...
You're magnetic ink!

First man:
I'm more than that, I know I am...
At least I think I must be.

Inner man:
There you go, man...
Keep as cool as you can...
Face piles of trials with smiles...
It riles them to believe...
That you perceive...
The web they weave...
And keep on thinking free!

Life has been telling you that your 'teacup' is full and you can't accept anymore tea until you empty your cup. Emptying your cup is the one thing you refuse to do.

One other interesting note. If you look at life, and in this case movies, life has been attempting to 'remind' you to uncover your 'self' with movies like “2001: A Space Odyssey”, the “Star Wars” family of movies, and “The Matrix”. In “2001: A Space Odyssey”, HAL (HAL 9000) killed of all of the astronauts except Dave. In “Star Wars” you had the “Force” and “The Dark Side” of the Force (what do you think that was all about?), and in the “Matrix” you had a group of 'Be'-ings fighting for their lives against the Matrix.

Throughout the history of man this has been a consistently recurring theme because it is who you are. These 'stories' come from 'you', 'Be'-ing. That 'feeling' you get when you watch these movies is 'you' reminding you of who you are.

Listen to your 'self'.

1 Reply

It APPEARS to me that the terms "Being", "be-ing" and "representations" occur as follows:
"Be-ing" is properly presented as a gerund noun (-ing) because it refers (or is best used to refer) to dynamic processes, the process of existence or existing. These processes are what we mistakenly take for static things.
I think of it as concrete immediate experience.

"Representations" are the meanings we assign to pre-reflectively and immediately experienced --or primordially given phenomena. We necessarily live in a world clothed in representations, a symbolic universe. But at base the Emperor has no clothes; the ground of all be-ings is naked; the Tao cannot be named, etc. All the meaningfulness in life (including this statement) is our construction.

"Being" cannot represent dynamic processes individually. There are no things only processes. But as I like to think, Being is a grand metaphor for the whole shebang. It is the ground of itself: Ultimate Reality or Brahma.
This is off the top of my head so I expect recommendations.

Obviously, I'm ignorant of Heidegger, but a bit familiar with Nietzsche.

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLN, I don't know anything about Heidegger or Nietzsche, but your opinion on be-ing and representation makes sense to this observer. However, be forewarned that I'm a simpleton when it comes down to philosophy.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

The thing with change is that it always end up repeating the same path, or shall I say the same pattern...A film seems to move but ends up being just static images...that is the issue between Being and Be-ing...

0 Replies

@Dasein,

Have you seen the movie Tron? That gave me a 'reminder' when I watched it as well.

You say 'listen to your self' but am I not my 'self'?

What is listening?

3 Replies

what is the beggining of philosophy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know